Drew Peterson, a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, faces up to five years in prison on a charge of possessing an illegal weapon -- a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16 inches. Peterson, who was released Wednesday after posting $7,500 bail -- 10 percent of a $75,000 bond -- says that as a member of the Bolingbrook Police Department's SWAT team it was legal for him to possess the rifle when authorities seized it and other weapons back in October.
Why arrest Drew on the gun charge now, and why set bond at $75,000? At a hearing Thursday a judge is expected to allow Peterson's son to take possession of the other guns that were seized.
What do you think of the arrest? How do you think this arrest fits into the larger investigations -- into the now-determined homicide of Kathleen Savio, Drew's third wife, and Stacy's disappearance? What do you think will happen next?
I think it is a clear case of harassment by the state police. They can't find any proof that he murdered his wife, so they find a petty charge that appears to be false to arrest him for. It follows the pattern they adopted when they revoked his FOID card.
Actions like these by police agencies make them look like vigilantes. Innocent until proven guilty seems to be a policy the police have discarded in this and many other cases.
Clearly a case of the police doing their job of law enforcement. It is a public safety issue and in the best interest of public policy for the police to actively work to keep illegal weapons off the street and out of the hands of those whom we do not trust to safely or properly handle weapons.
Retired police officer or not the State of Illinois no longer trusts Drew Peterson to handle weapons, otherwise his FOID card would not have been revoked by a judge. Let's not forget that Drew Peterson has also had several legal actions attempting to have ALL of the weapons taken from him returned and barring success at those actions attempted to skirt the law and have the weapons returned to his son. At least the judge in this case is thinking clearly.
Considering that one wife is dead under mysterious circumstances and another wife is missing under equally mysterious circumstances the judge has rightfully kept Mr Peterson on a real short and tight leash. Not exactly helping his case is the fact that Drew Peterson hasn't done a single thing that a normal, reasonable person would have done if their spouse turned up missing which speaks volumes about his character. Being out late with single women and hanging out in taverns while your wife is missing and you have young children at home doesn't buy much sympathy or understanding from the average person either and only serves to further damage his character.
Drew Peterson is still innocent until proven guilty. He will have his day in court and in the end it will be up to a jury of his peers to decide his innocence or guilt. Since we are talking about a jury of his peers I'm assuming this trial will be really unique and for a change we can actually have a jury of peers, rightfully composed of retired police officers? Oh, the irony if that could only happen!
Anonymouse, there are three reasons that a FOID card can be legally revoked. Spousal abuse, commission of a crime, or legally declared mental incapacity. Peterson fits none of those categories. Furthermore, his FOID card was not revoked by a judge, but by an elected politician. Now he has to go through the expense of going to court to regain a legal right illegally taken away from him. This is obvious harassment.
The weapon that would be illegal for a citizen to own was purchased legally by Peterson when he was a police officer. It was taken from him while he was still a police officer. If the state police had concerns about the weapon, the proper way to address it would have been at the hearings considering turning Peterson's weapons over to his son...another police officer. This again is obvious harassment.
If the police have any evidence against Peterson for either the death of his third wife or the disappearance of his fourth wife, they should make an arrest. Otherwise, he should be treated as an innocent citizen no matter how despicable he appears.
The average person already has made up their mind as to which categories Drew Peterson fits and the negative categories outweigh any supporters by at least 1,000 to 1.
The State Police were acting within their legal capacity to issue and/or revoke FOID cards for both Stebic and Peterson. There are at least 9 major factors under which a FOID card can be revoked and a few minor ones if you read the actual statute which gives the State Police authority to take such action.
The State Police are not idiots. They know and enforce the law on a much more professional level than most bumbling local law enforcement agencies. Both Stebic and Peterson will have their day in court.
Drew Peterson has a long legal road to hoe ahead of him. We can all assume that the States Attorney will pursue charges and a Grand Jury will eventually indict him in the death of his 3rd wife. Once the body of the 4th wife is found we can expect more charges and indictments.
Sadly, we can expect to see a lot more of Drew Peterson in the media in the years to come. It will be a long hard road for him to ever be able to legally possess firearms again and if that day ever comes for him, so be it. Until then, restricting his access and use of firearms is certainly in the best interest of all citizens and the State Police should be commended for taking action.
Well, Anonymouse, it seems you are in favor of vigilante justice. Everybody thinks he is guilty, so take away his rights without a trial, or even any evidence. You can ask all those recently exonerated in Illinois, some from death row, how well public opinion reflects actual guilt.
Not being a lawyer, I can only go by what the paper prints for revocation of an FOID card. The Tribune reported the three I listed, not nine. Suspicion of committing a crime was not included.
I am in no way saying Peterson is innocent. All I am saying is that he should not have his rights taken away until he is tried and convicted in court, assuming there is real evdidence, instead having his rights taken away after being tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.
Read the statute for a full explanation. If you don't have the time or desire then go to the Illinois State Police web site and they list the nine major reasons a FOID card may be revoked.
Go back and read my post. There was no inference to vigilante justice. There was not inference to take away his rights. I'm not sure how you jump to such conclusions and end up making such wild accusations. Have you ever thought about taking a course in logic or reasoning? Good grief!
Lots of our rights can and are taken away before a trial and conviction. Let's take basic freedom, for example, being taken away if you get tossed in jail. Sometimes a judge may issue a gag order which takes away the right to free speech. Just like taking away a FOID card or his weapons or freedom, or free speech it isn't forever. Eventually there will be a trial and a jury will decide.
Until a decision is reached in a trial he will have to sit in the penalty box and wait it out. Maybe a bit of an inconvenience but not exactly the end of the world either. And if it keeps another really gullible or naive woman out there potentially free from serious harm or worse I think that is a really good thing.
I'm no big fan of Drew but lets not repeat the Duke case. Lets see some evidence before we decide Drew is guilty of his wife's dissappearence. His claim that she took off with $5k cash and her bikini is not evidence. Its stupid. With the gun, we have the following: 1) he claims the gun was used as a duty weapon with BPD. It was registered with them. When you get permission to use a duty weapon or an off duty weapon, it has to be inspected by in this case the BPD range officer, the serial number is logged and run through NCIC to be sure its clear (it is photgraphed where I worked and origin affadavit has to be sworn to) and you have to qualify with it. By the way, name one municiple PD that allows illegal weapons to be carried by employees. If it was illegal, it should have been dealt with then. What is BPD procedure? Why wasn't an illegal weapon matter dealt with then? 2) The gun was among those siezed about 7 months ago. How does anyone know what happened to it in the 7 months it was not in his possession? Hope they have a log on who handled it. I would have some questions for who ever was in possession of it during those 7 months. Although it seems Drew is not disputing he knew the barrel was short. 3) How curious after 7 months of examination, testing etc. suddenly BATF lets the Will County States Attorney (not US Attorney since BATF and short barrel guns is federal jurisdiction) Wonder why? Need I not remind all of you of the Randy Weaver case??? You know, the one where the UC BATF agent "convinced" or "entrapped" Weaver to alter a barrel too short and the BATF had the stand off at Weavers mountian home, was later found to be responsible for the deaths of an agent, Weavers son, wife etc? The same case where Weaver won $2M in a federal civil rights case. So to the exhalted journalists; ask some questions along the lines of 1,2 and 3. Finally, his pension isn't going anywhere. If they try to take it, it would seem he may have an opportunity to take more money from government than just the pension. So go ahead, make my day. Show me where I'm wrong.
Show me where I'm wrong?
Let's start with his claims and denials. How many perpetrators charged with a crime have not made up false claims or denied what they did was wrong? If the police or states attorney believed any of this BS there would be all kinds of scum bags walking free on our streets. Just because he said it doesn't make it true, factual, or legal. Just because a lawyer said it doesn't make it true either... dear lord anyone older than 10 knows that the vast majority of lawyers are paid to lie and get people out of trouble regardless of their actual guilt.
The concept of fair and true justice in today's legal system is a joke. And you would have us give the benefit of the doubt to someone who's wife is missing under mysterious circumstances? You would give the benefit of the doubt to someone who's other wife died under mysterious circumstances? Are you really that stupid?
His pension isn't going anywhere? Don't bet on that one. Seems there has been no shortage of allegations about abuse of power, violations of department policy, and possibly some illegal activity... all while on official duty. I am willing to bet the BPD is fully investigating all of these allegations and when they are ready they will proceed with charges. If the BPD can prove he violated the law his pension may very well be stripped away... and if that is the case the loss of his pension will be the least of his worries.
You know how cops are... if they can't prove he killed his wife or was responsible for the other wife's disappearance they won't rest until they find something to convict him on. The general thought being that doing some time is better than serving no time. Maybe the scale of justice isn't served entirely what was due, but at least it doesn't completely fail us either.
Plus the positive side, is that we can look to a similar case like OJ Simpson. Everyone knows OJ killed his wife and the legal system failed at first. Problem is that OJ was simply too stupid and too arrogant to keep himself out of trouble and now he is facing some serious hard time.
We can all look forward to the fact that history has an ironic habit of repeating itself. It is not a question of if, only when Peterson goes to jail. While all this will take time to play out in court it is not a bad thing that he does not have access to firearms until we all know and understand the truth better. Right now the average person believes he is guilty and the average person needs to believe the government is taking reasonable and prudent measures to keep all of us average people free from harm from people whom we rightfully believe are capable of harming us or others.
Kudos to the police for arresting him for something completely tanglible (and I am a member of the NRA) with the gun crime, while detectives dig into this smug, sociopath's other possible crimes. At least the Illinois state police seem to still be trying! As for the following poster:
'By Ken on May 21, 2008 10:16 PM '...
What a typically male Neanderthal world your little mind lives in.
Anonymouse, you make me wince. You approve of hectoring tactics used by the police since they can't make a case, yet wounder why I think you approve of vigilante justice? By the way, I went to the state police website and they only list three reasons for revocation of a FOID card in the FAQ section. Could not find the other six reasons anywhere. Either way, what legal reason was used to take away Peterson's card? Seems the only people that may have to worry about him having a gun are current or ex wives. That point aside, if you think the man is guilty of two murders, what makes you think he would think twice about getting an illegal weapon to commit another crime?
Lane, how does wanting the authorities to follow the law make me a Neanderthal? I would think that encouraging the police and state's attorney's office to ride rough shod over anyone's rights before charges have been filed, or making up facts to file charges would be the Neanderthal act. Of course, maybe you are in favor of all the false convictions that have come about and resulted in huge payouts because of these kind of actions taken by various police forces and district attorney's offices lately.
Ken,
Can't find it on the ISP web site? Ok, we will spoon feed it to you then...
http://www.isp.state.il.us/media/docdetails.cfm?DocID=557
As stated previously there are additional minor causes for FOID card revocation found within the Firearm Owners Identification Act, 430 ILCS 65/10. What follows are the nine major factors.
"The Illinois State Police will revoke an individual's FOID card if the individual:
is under indictment for a felony;
has been convicted of a felony;
is a fugitive from justice;
is a controlled substance and/or narcodics user or addict;
has been a patient in a mental institution in the past five years;
has been discharged dishonorably from the armed forces;
is the subjectof an Order of Protection or has been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence;
has renounced U.S. citizenship; or
is an alien who is illegally or unlawfully in the United States."
The Firearm Owners Identification Act provides provisions whereby anyone can appeal a decision made by the Illinois State Police. This is not "hectoring"; this is due process. We The People have rights. So does Drew Peterson.
The judicial system will decide if Drew Peterson should or should not be permitted to possess firearms.
Thanks for proving my point, Anonymouse. Which one of those offenses did Peterson commit to get his FOID card pulled? It is an obvious case of harassment by the authorities, and one that a fan of vigilante justice such as you seems to approve of.
Ken,
I didn't prove your point, I proved mine. Sorry, you will have to prove your own points.
You stated that there were only three reason a FOID card could be revoked. I challenged you on that and stated there were at least 9 major reasons, plus other minor reasons. I proved my point and quoted my source.
Please stop trying to take things out of context and putting negative spin on others words to serve your own misguided purpose. I never, ever advocated or approved of vigilante justice. Use of the words "vigilante justice" are limited to what you have wrote and you alone are responsible for bringing them up.
You have no proof of harassment, just your own personal opinion and allegation.
Which one of those offenses did Peterson commit? Try asking the ISP. Maybe it is one of the 9 major reasons, maybe it is one of the other minor reasons. We don't know everything about Peterson. For example, maybe he has been a patient in a mental institution... that fact would be shielded by patient confidentiality laws, but may have been investigated by the ISP.
There are other possibilities. For example, one of the minor reasons not listed is: "A person whose mental condition is of such a nature that it poses a clear and present danger to the applicant, any other person or persons or the community." Considering the mysterious circumstances under which one wife died and another wife disappeared is it unreasonable for the ISP or States Attorney to argue that they believe Peterson is a danger to others or a danger to the community.
Let's not forget that he is under suspicion of murder. He is the main suspect. The statistical laws of probability are so far off the charts, not only that one man would be married this many times, but also that one wife would die mysteriously and another disappear mysteriously. IF he is guilty it means he is not only a repeat offender but a sociopath. Thankfully the ISP and the States Attorney make these decision and not Neanderthals like you.
Yes, Peterson is innocent until proven guilty. Not to worry, Peterson is well represented... that is up to the limits of what his police pension can afford. He will have his day in court. He will see due process served firsthand.
In the end a judge or jury will decide his guilt or innocence. Personally I'm hoping we can all look forward to the day when the final words from a judge to Drew Peterson are "May God have mercy upon you."
Anonymouse, you are blinded by technicalities in your own argument. My point was that there was no legal reason to take away Peterson's FOID card, not how many variations of the three reasons printed by the Chicago Tribune or the three stated in the state police website FAQ's.
If your point is that you dug deeper than that to find variations of the theme, I will concede that point. Funny how even the state police thought that posting only those three was enough, but then again you need your small victory.
The proof of harassment is contained in the information that I posted and you expounded on. If Peterson met any of those categories before the political stunt of pulling his FOID card occurred, why wasn't action taken sooner? Up until the county and state authorities found that they could not indefinitely keep Peterson's property, they had no problem with his FOID card. Up until the harassing move of taking it away, Peterson could have legally purchased as many guns as he wanted.
The state and county were upset by the judge's determination that Peterson actually had a right to possess his own property, so they have found another way to harass him. Now he has to spend money to fight false charges which sure seems like harassment to me.
I am completely responsible for pointing out your vigilante tendencies. You gloat over the fact that Peterson has to spend his pension money to defend his rights. Your statements show that you already have him convicted and have no problems with with the cops constantly bringing charges against him because they cannot find any proof that he committed any crime. In short, you advocate circumventing the law to get the result you desire, making you a vigilante. In the old days, you would be one of the cowards in the crowd yelling to string him up.
You call me a Neanderthal because I have this notion that authorities should follow the laws while enforcing them. What does that make you?
Sorry, but you are wrong. If I did any of what you allege is being done, then I would indeed be a vigilante. But, in fact, I did none of this.
The state did what it did within it's legal powers. Are you now accusing the state of being vigilante? The state can and should charge someone if they believe they violated the law. Failure of the state to do that would only lead to anarchy. The state can charge him with a new violation every day if they choose, it is within their legal right. It is not harassment and the legal system allows it. New charges are filed against people all the time. There isn't any requirement for all charges to be filed at once. With an ongoing investigation new information may lead to new charges. Charges are made when the police and states attorney deem them to be appropriate. If you don't like the legal system then write your congressman and ask him to change it.
You just don't like the fact how and when this played out is all. Despite all of your whining about alleged police harassment there are undoubtably many legal facts that you do not know or are privy to surrounding the legal basis by which the ISP reached their conclusion to revoke his FOID card. You have no legal basis to allege the authorities did not follow the law while enforcing them.
I called you a Neanderthal because you would sacrifice public safety over a reasonable and legal restraint of a person who may pose a threat to the rest of our community.
No, I am not a coward in a crowd yelling to string him up. I am one of many in our community yelling for the authorities to keep working and investigating this case until someone is charged with a crime. If you have a better suspect than Drew Peterson, please call the ISP and provide them with what you know.
There is one thing Drew Peterson can be thankful for though. If Drew Peterson is ever actually charged with a crime he can be thankful that I will never serve on his jury.
Yes, I am accusing the state of vigilante actions. You think states are not capable of that? Check out the fiasco in Texas where the state illegally took a bunch of children from their parents just because they did not like their religious beliefs. Luckily the Texas Supreme Court chose to actually enforce the law instead of believing the hype.
That is the problem with you, Anonymouse. You want to take away Peterson's rights because of the hype as opposed to using actual evidence. Yes the state can file charges against someone everyday, but they are supposed to have evidence to back their charges.
You say that the state has a right to take away Peterson's gun rights and falsely charge him with crimes because you think he is a danger to society. What if your neighbors deemed you a danger to society for what ever reason? Would you still think that their actions were reasonable if they happened to you? Before you answer that, think of Kevin Fox, another person convicted in the court of public opinion by shoddy police work. Or, to keep it local, ask the Nicarico's how they feel about the rush to judgment that still hasn't resulted in the conviction of the murderer of their daughter.
You claim you do not believe in vigilantism, yet admit that Peterson would get a guilty verdict from you if you were on the jury. Doesn't it bother you that there is no evidence that has even resulted in an arrest? It is not my job to solve the crime as you seem to think. It is the state police's job, and so far they have failed miserably.
As I stated before, I have the notion that the authorities should act within the law to prove their case. I think our legal system is just fine, as long as the people in charge of it use it within the law that they are supposed to support. Obviously, you think any means justify the ends as long as you get the outcome you want.
American Heritage Dictionary: "One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands."
I have done neither. Your anger is misplaced.
Nor has or can any state. Only an individual or a person can act as in a vigilante manner. You are simply angry that the state has power and uses them to protect the innocent.
"You say that the state has a right to take away Peterson's gun rights and falsely charge him with crimes because you think he is a danger to society." Nope, you said that not me. Go ahead, take a look. Yep, your words, not mine.
"You claim you do not believe in vigilantism, yet admit that Peterson would get a guilty verdict from you if you were on the jury." Sorry, again you said that... your words not mine.
You really are not very good at putting words in other peoples mouths. And you are even worse at keeping what other posters actually did state.
"Obviously, you think any means justify the ends as long as you get the outcome you want." Trust me when I say this... you have no idea what I am thinking nor any way of knowing what is obvious. Try concentrating on what you are thinking. If you could think and do it logically we would appreciate that even better.
You really are good at jumping to conclusions and making wild accusations. Just because you personally disagree with charges that have been filed against Peterson doesn't mean that he has been falsely charged. Just because the police are doing a thorough investigation does not mean the Peterson is innocent. What will be your excuse for your opinion today come tomorrow when the police or the states attorney actually files charges?
You obviously know very little about the law and even less about police procedures or how to conduct a thorough investigation. If you ever find yourself in legal trouble do yourself a favor and don't even consider acting as your own attorney. Better yet give Drew Peterson's attorney a call and see if he is available. Seems he does a pretty good job in general of keeping scum bags out of jail.
And while we are talking about scum bags who aren't in jail do you also believe that OJ is innocent?
Your two statements which you claim you never made, Anonymouse. I stated them differently, but your intent is obvious.
I called you a Neanderthal because you would sacrifice public safety over a reasonable and legal restraint of a person who may pose a threat to the rest of our community.
There is one thing Drew Peterson can be thankful for though. If Drew Peterson is ever actually charged with a crime he can be thankful that I will never serve on his jury.
My opinion will not change one bit if the police ever actually find any evidence and charge Peterson. Whether or not I believe Peterson (or OJ, for that matter)is guilty or innocent is not the point. The point is that until he is charged, he has rights. Until the preponderance of evidence proves him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he has rights.
Unless either of the above happens, the present actions taken by the authorities who have all sworn to uphold the law violate the very law they have sworn to uphold.
By the way, the tact of attacking the messenger when you can't attack the message gets kind of old. Try following your own advice.
"I stated them differently, but your intent is obvious." Like a total distortion to then come up with your own half-cocked assumption of what is "obvious" in your mind alone. Dear Lord both your thinking and logic are warped and distorted. Little wonder you can rationalize your argument that everyone but Drew Peterson has violated the law.
The important fact that you forget with all of your "rights" rhetoric is that "rights" are not absolute and never have been. There are still limits on how we can exercise our "rights".
Yes, we all have the right to free speech. That does not mean we can yell fire in a movie theater. That does not mean we can plagiarize others work. That does not mean we can slander or libel others.
Yes we are free people. That does not mean we can't get tossed in jail. That doesn't mean we can be denied bond. That does not mean a judge can't set bail higher than what we can afford.
There are many, many more examples related to all of our rights and I don't intend to go through all of them one by one. I'll assume you are a reasonable person of at least reasonable intelligence and understand the point by now.
I'll also assume that you as a reasonable and intelligent person understand that just as citizens have rights the state also has rights.
If the authorities had violated the law as you allege Drew Peterson or his attorney would have filed charges. If some of the more egregious things you claim were happening most likely the ACLU would be going to bat for Drew Peterson and that hasn't happened either.
So go ahead and sit and stew and brew and get in a nasty funk because you personally disagree that the state should have the power and ability to exercise that power when needed. Go ahead and get mad. Go ahead and get really, really mad. Because when you are that wrong about how the system is supposed to work. Because when you are that wrong about how the system actually does work. About all you have left to do is to get angry. Really, really angry. With yourself.
I'll assume you are a reasonable person of at least reasonable intelligence and understand the point by now.
I wish I could assume the same about you. Was there a point in that rambling post of yours? You sound kind of...angry.
Well Ken,
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt that you at least understood my point... not to be confused with agreeing with my point, of course.
Then you yourself confirmed that you didn't understand my point.
Lack of knowledge is understandable. Certainly none of us knows everything.
Lack of understanding though, lack of comprehension.... hmmm. Well I'm not really sure how to respond to that as a compassionate person other than to wish you well in life.
I really don't mind your personal attacks, Anonymouse, as it shows your lack of knowledge. As is often said, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. It just shows how low you have to go when you have no point.
I realize we disagree. You just have no point other than whatever the authorities do to Peterson is okay with you because you have already convicted him.
My point, which you cannot seem to comprehend, is that he should be convicted with evidence obtained from an investigation, not harassed with whatever charge the authorities make up since they are to inept to find any evidence of criminal activity on his part. I brought up three cases, two recent, one from many years ago yet still ongoing to make my point. All you can do is attack me, which seems an odd form of compassion.
All this does is make your case for abrogation of a suspects rights look pretty weak, but since you have failed to back it up, I'm sure that is no surprise to you.
The cases you mentioned are not relevant to anything that has or has not been done with charging Drew Peterson. The only thing that matters is the facts in the Drew Peterson case. Most of which you have no idea what they are unless you are part of the prosecution, part of the defense, or part of the grand jury. Beyond them, everyone else has bits and pieces and fragments.
You took the bits and pieces that you have heard, threw in a bunch of rumors for good measure, added your own hysterics and jumped to your own conclusion that the authorities have acted wrongly. You have no factual knowledge of what evidence the authorities do or do not have. Obviously they took what they know, added it up and came to a different conclusion. Get over it. At least they have legal standing as officers of the court. Your opinion doesn't add up to a hill of beans. Do you actually think the ISP are reading this forum and saying to themselves... you know that guy makes a good point. Get a life already! It ain't happening. It ain't gonna happen in your lifetime either.
Even Drew Peterson's own attorney hasn't made the outlandish claims that you have made and he has made some really outrageous claims. If you are so smart. If you know so much about the law. If have factual proof to back up all the BS you have been slinging around. Then why don't you volunteer your time, your knowledge, and your expertise to the Drew Peterson defense team. Seems likely that pretty soon Peterson is going to need all the help and support he can get.
As I said, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.
I never said I was giving more than an opinion (gee, who would of thought one would get opinions on an opinion board like this?) based on the news stories I have read. By the way, stories in the news have quoted Peterson's lawyer's claims of harassment, so that part of your rant is wrong.
Other than that, you seem to be pretty hysterical yourself. Of course, if all I could do was attack another poster instead of backing up my claim, I might become emotionally unbalanced too. Glad I don't have to worry about that. Say hi to your shrink for me.
A defense attorney is always going to make claims of harassment. You just make the naive mistake of believing such claims. You would have us believe all of these scum bags are totally innocent. Excuse us if we are not as gullible as you. They will have their day in court. For most of these scum bags they should be thankful they are American scum bags because they at least will get their day in court. In many other places in the world justice for them would be far more swift and far more severe.
Sure newspapers report such claims. That does not change the fact that they are claims, unsubstantiated claims, alleged acts. You can jump on your hysterical band wagon when and if any real charges get filed. Be thankful you live in America too where your right to free speech and publicly make a fool of yourself is also protected.
Bleeding heart liberals like you would have us empty our prisons just because of the weird twisted way you want to interpret some of our rights. Thank God people like you will never be put in charge of making such decisions.
Thank God our police and prosecutors are doing everything in their power to keep the scum bags off our street. Not that I wish anything bad to happen to you, but people like you just don't get it until you see up close and personal the evil that exists in some people. Then and only then they become converts and true believers.
If you knew how far off the mark you were Anonymouse, you would be to embarrassed to ever post again. Nice of you to continue your attack posting style, even to the point where you wish harm to me while saying you are not.
Let's get a few things straight here:
I have never said I believed Peterson is innocent. You have assumed that is what I think. What I have consistently said is that he should be charged and convicted on the huge amount of evidence that you seem to know the police have before his rights are taken away.
Taking away his FOID card should be linked to "real charges", which have not happened by his own admission. If there is evidence, charge the man and go to trial. Anything else is taking away his rights without due process, something you cannot seem to comprehend.
The reason I am not happy with the abrogation of Peterson's rights is because I don't want some scumbag district or state attorney to with your mindset to be able to take away my rights on speculation. I gave you two examples of that happening in Illinois and one in Texas but because of your willingness to convict Peterson without any evidence, you will not admit the similarities in the cases. My sole concern is the fact that his gun ownership rights were taken away without a hearing. I don't want that to happen to me. As a matter of fact, this "bleeding heart liberal" would like to see concealed carry made the law in this state so I can protect myself against all the scum out there. I have had a gun pulled on me twice, and really would have liked to been able to defend myself.
It is very sad that you think taking one's rights away without due process is okay as long as you feel the suspect is guilty. That is the weird twisted reasoning here.
You are on this rant over your personal agenda to see concealed carry made legal in Illinois? You are seriously whacked.
You claim you had a gun pulled on you twice nad really would have liked to been able to defend yourself? Are you kidding? A gun pulled on you twice and you are still alive? Now if you were armed there is a good chance either you or the bad guy might not be alive now.
In all reality this doesn't sound like defense or even basic protection. If someone pull a gun on you, you sound like you want the upper hand and a chance to take them out rather than give in to what they demand. Arming you and everyone else will never make our society safer. Your desire to protect yourself against all of the scum out there sounds like you intend to act as judge, jury, and executioner when you want and that is being a vigilante. You are pathetic and a hypocrite.
And while you are pointing the finger and talking about taking away one's rights without due process lets talk about Peterson's third wife and her loss of rights. Lets talk about who is seeing justice served on her behalf. Lets talk about Peterson's missing wife and her rights. Let's talk about who is seeing justice served on her behalf until we know her fate for certain.
And you would have us believe poor little Drew Peterson's "rights" are being violated and trump all others? Tell him to take a ticket and get in line.
Anonymouse, I obviously am not the one "seriously whacked" here. I realize you have to keep attacking me as you have no point, but you really should look in the mirror when you make statements like that.
Your lack of knowledge is also obvious. While my whole point here is that no one's rights should be taken away without a trial and conviction, I will address your latest rant. By the way, weren't you the one saying I was twisting your statements? Your rant does a better job than a tornado twisting one sentence in my statement to your agenda of ignorance. But I digress...
First of all, it has been proven that states that adopt concealed carry laws have a drop in crime. The scum are afraid to pull a gun on someone who may be carrying one themselves. They prefer bleeding heart liberals like yourself who will just let themselves be robbed.
Second, self defense is completely different from vigilantism. Self defense is only used when someone attacks. Vigilantism, as you have shown, is when a group conspires to take away a person's rights without a fair trial.
Third, the police are supposed to be protecting the rights of Peterson's ex and current wife by finding evidence to prove their charges. If it is so obvious that Peterson is guilty, how come they have not charged and convicted him with anything having to do with their death and disappearance?
I have to wonder, if the police named you a suspect in a crime, would you willingly give up your rights before you were even charged with the crime you are accused of?
And what is your point? That you would make our society more unsafe? More deadly? Your quest to arm every citizen does nothing but escalate violence. And what about the kids? If it is necessary to arm all of the adults how are the kids going to defend themselves? Do we want to place all of our kids at risk because a few whacked adults want to walk around carrying a gun?
In the bigger picture I think we all have to ask ourselves if we Americans in the 21st century are a civilized people, a civilized nation? If we truly are civilized then their should be no need for people carrying weapons, not need for self defense. If we are not there yet, but we truly do wish to become civilized is arming people going to lead us to being more civilized or lead us away? If someone thinks it will lead us to being more civilized then how/when will we know we have reached the point when it is safe to turn in all our weapons?
My point is that Peterson's rights should not be taken away before he is actually convicted of a crime. My point is that the police should find evidence of the crime they have named him a suspect in, not try to find supposed crimes they can harass him with because they cannot prove the very serious crimes they have accused him of. My point is that I don't want his case to set a precedent of taking people's rights away (even your's, Anonymouse) just because they think he is guilty.
As for your off point diversion into concealed carry laws and their effect on society, I can't see wasting my time debating someone so lacking in knowledge on the subject. Simply put, 47 states have some form of concealed carry, most of their crime rates dropped after concealed carry was made legal, and people are not shooting each other in the streets. Your typical bleeding heart liberal tact of saying what about the children does not even enter into the debate. In answer to when we can turn in the guns, it will be when all our prisons are empty because there is no crime to prosecute. In other words, the need for self protection has not changed since the days of the cavemen and clubs.
Ken,
Clearly you and those who think like you will never be leaders in any movement toward making our nation or our world a better and more civilized place. It is a shame that you would limit the possibilities of what our nation could become based upon your closed minded views and paranoid fear that leads you to rationalizing that carrying guns and arming every citizen is the answer to everything.
"... the need for self protection has not changed since the days of the cavemen and clubs." Except for the fact that our weapons of choice have gotten more sophisticated and a lot more deadly. When and where does the race to "outgun" the other guy ever end? What will the weapons we carry look like 100 years from now, 200 years from now? Is that the legacy you want to leave to the next generation and all the generations that follow them. Violence begets violence? As intelligent as mankind is; despite everything we have been able to invent, create, or develop are we to limit our ability to end violence? Are we resigned to the fact that violence always was and therefore always shall be? Is that the best you can hope for our society?
In reality your entire rant is nothing more than smoke and mirrors and an attempt to prop up a so-called "rights argument" using a looser like Peterson as your poster child to hide your real agenda.
What a childish and pathetic attempt to bastardize our constitution, to twist and distort our bill of rights. At least we have the Supreme Court to stand between those like you who would turn this county into something it never has been and God willing never will be.
What a childish and pathetic attempt to bastardize our constitution, to twist and distort our bill of rights. At least we have the Supreme Court to stand between those like you who would turn this county into something it never has been and God willing never will be.
Are you talking about your own attempts to take away a person's rights without a fair trial? A few Illinois and Texas courts have ruled against that recently. You may wish for a police state to live in, but I am glad the courts have not completely let that happen, although they get closer and closer every day.
If you are going to continue to attempt to cover up your willingness to take away everyone's rights without a trial with your concealed carry diversion, could you at least get some facts? Maybe you could also try to state your position instead of making up one for me. You once accused me of making up things you said when I just paraphrased them, yet you do not hesitate to attribute completely non-related thoughts to me. I guess when you cannot make a valid point, that is what you have to do.
Lastly, I don't know what utopia you live in, but in the real world violence is a fact of life and always will be.
Ken,
Just because you don't know how to lead change does not mean it can not or will not happen.
Just because you can't see a world without violence doesn't mean everyone else shares your view or vision.
The problem is you do not understand the constitution. You do not understand the bill of rights. You do not understand what citizenship means. You do not understand how the judicial system works.
Yet you run loose and fast with your opinions and interpretations and accuse the police and courts of all kinds of fantasies that you have conjured up in depth of your own personal fantasies. Worse yet you actually believe all of this.
And out of the depths of your consciousness come your solutions that would make our society a far more dangerous place.
I'm not sure where you come up with these half-cocked notions of yours. Whether you derive them on your own of if they reflect the people with whom you associate. Do us all a favor and let the police and prosecutors do there job. Stop second guessing the professionals. As an amateur you are doing a really, really bad job. Besides, nobody likes a monday morning quarterback.
Actually, Anonymouse, you don't understand the constitution or the bill of rights. You want to take away all rights before a trial and conviction happens. I have advocated letting the police and prosecutors doing their job all along instead of pursuing other false avenues when they can't.
You say I run loose with my interpretations of the law, yet have not been able to refute any of them. You could not even refute my interpretation of what you said. I know this is hard for you, but try to debate with facts instead of rhetoric and personal attacks.
It is amazing that many great world leaders have not been able to snuff out violence over thousands of years, yet you think it can be done. You should run for office and achieve what you think is possible. If you have a viable plan for eliminating and not just fantasies, I will vote for you. Otherwise, your words are meaningless.
Just out of idle curiosity, if no one likes Monday morning quarterbacking, why are so many people here, you included, so interested in doing it?
Ken,
You think you know more than all of the police, investigators, lawyers, and prosecutors who are actually working this case. Either you are right or they are working this case properly. If you are right then either their are some incompetent public servants or incompetent defense attorneys for everyone but you to miss what you claim. Or a whole bunch of civil servants who have broken the law. But then again only you and you alone are charging these hard working people with these kind of inflammatory allegations.
Someone needs to toss you a life preserver because you are no longer even able to tread water in this discussion.
Now anonymouse, don't go 'stuffing words in my mouth' as you have accused me of doing here and in another thread. I never said the authorities don't know what they are doing. I said they should charge Peterson with the crime they keep insisting they know and can prove he did instead of trying to throw everything they can make up at him and try to make something stick. That kind of makes them look like incompetent idiots, in my opinion.
As I have said repeatedly, my main concern is that they took away his rights before he has been charged or convicted with any crime. This does not seem to bother you at all, yet you claim to believe in the constitution and the bill of rights.
I don't have to tread water in this discussion, as I am swimming in the right direction. Your inability to refute anything I have said along with your constant personal attacks make you the one appearing to be drowning in defeat.
You are just disgruntled that the government doesn't work the way you "think" it should work. You are angry because the government has power to keep order and maintain public safety.
Your opinion of that the authorities look like incompetent idiots is not going to gain you a lot of friends and supporters. The average person wants the authorities to do exactly what they are doing and what they have been doing.
Maybe you are convinced you are swimming in the right direction, just realize you will find yourself isolated and alone where you are headed.
Well, anonymouse, if the friends and supporters I would gain are like you and advocate giving up all the rights given us by the constitution and the bill of rights, they are not worth having.
I remember a lot of people went along with Hitler when he started taking away rights. While you may be happy with the outcome of those types of actions, I am not. If that makes me disgruntled and angry with a government that abuses its authority, so be it.
Ken,
Glad to know you are disgruntled and angry with your government. Knowing that goes a long way to explain everything you have posted.
Anonymouse, any one with half a brain is angry and disgruntled with our government.
So Ken how much brain does that leave you with?
More than enough to deal with you.
Really? Well since it is your turn next... impress me.
I don't really feel the need to impress someone that has shown he only has half a brain. You are already at a disadvantage, why embarrass you more?
Just when I think, "Surely this person has reached and encapsulates the limits of Internet tedium" you go and push the boundary even further.
Yet you come back for more. Thanks for proving my point.
I didn't prove your point, I proved mine. Sorry, you will have to prove your own points. That is if you have the ability to actually make a point. So for your incoherent jabbering has been typically unimpressive and on target with what we normally expect from you.
Well, anonymouse, I don't know who the "we" that you allude to are. It appears that only you and I had any interest in this topic, and since you have moved even your attacks to the nonsensical, I'm not all that interested. As for my incoherence, it seems to have shut you up on the subject of this thread. I'll get back to you when you want to debate the thread topic instead of whatever it is you are doing now.
Really? Well since it is your turn next... impress us. Wow us with your intellectual prowess of the Peterson case and how case law applies to these circumstances. Knock us over with some more of your personal opinion on why you are right and everyone else working this case is wrong.
Yawn...I have addressed this already. If the police are doing such a great job in what you think is a slam dunk case, why haven't murder charges been filed yet? Why hasn't Peterson been tried, convicted, and sentenced yet?
I don't expect any answers out of you Anonymous, because you didn't have any before. If there are other people helping you write your clever repartee, and I assume so since you keep using "we" and "us" in your statements, you need better help. If it is just the voices in your head helping you, your lack of cleverness is understandable.
Another false allegation by Ken in that I never, ever said this was a slam dunk case. As usual Ken you are not telling the truth and making up false quotes.
We all know the police and prosecutors will act by making an arrest when they are ready and not before.
In the meantime the State Police are still acting within their legal right as established by the State Legislature to yank Peterson's FOID card. It isn't the first time they have exercised this right and most likely will not be the last. If this is such a miscarriage of justice as you have long suggested then why hasn't Peterson's own attorney appealed this action to the courts? You didn't have an answer for this before and you don't have an answer for it now. Despite all of your blabbering the people can be thankful the authorities are doing what they have done and they have acted legally so far. Unless you have something new to add to this it is time for you suck it up and learn to deal with laws of our state that currently exist.
Well, Anonymouse, once again you have to lie to make yourself look...well, you look like an idiot, so I don't know why you continue with the lies. I never said you stated it is a slam dunk state, but it is obvious from all your statements that you think it is.
You will have to ask Peterson, Stebic, or their attorneys why they are not fighting the illegal confistication of their FOID cards. A recent article in the Tribune brought up the same question, and Stebic's lawyer declined to comment. Peterson obviously has to fight the illegal weapons charge, so maybe he is waiting for that case to be resolved.
If you think you or anyone else are any safer because Peterson does not have a FOID, you are really showing your stupidity. Does a lack of a FOID card stop any of the murders in Chicago? If Peterson wanted to obtain a gun, I am sure he would have no problems getting one.
As for dealing with the laws of our state, I have been for years. I just wish that the people in charge of enforcing the laws would do the same. Obviously, you don't care about losing rights as your blabbering shows you are willing to just suck it up and let the law enforcement officials run rampant over people's rights.
Ken, you either have some serious neuroses going on, or you are on the computer without your parents' permission. Everyone is an idiot but you, everyone's opinion is invalid except yours, and you insist on having the last word on each blog. Very mature of you. Oh, and the "Anonymouse" - really, for such an omniscient brain, you can't come up with something more witty than that?
Well, Anonymouse, I am not trying to be witty, although I do thank you for the complements on my brain power. You are an anonymouse because you are to afraid to come out in the open, just like a mouse. You follow me from thread to thread with your anonymouse attacks, too afraid to even make up a name that all can tie to your posts. Of course, with the mindless ramblings you post, I can see why you just want to be a face in the crowd instead of standing behind what you say.
Once again, I see that since you have nothing to add to the discussion, you have to resort to attacking me. In addition, you seem to think that I should just let your attacks go unanswered. As I have told you many times before, that won't happen.
Your claims that I think everyone else are idiots and that I think only my opinions are valid pretty much sum you up. I have expounded on my opinions, given valid examples, and all you can do is insist you are right. If you are so right, why do you have to constantly attack me instead of making valid points to bolster your side of the debate?
As for having the last word, it seems that you have that problem. Here's a thought for you. Try posting, as I did, that until there is an angle we have not covered, there is no use going further. Try doing it without attacking me. You will see, that as I have been bored with you for quite a while, I will let you have the last word. However, if you keep posting your childish attacks, I will keep reprimanding you as I do my own children.
I haven't lost any rights and neither have you. None of our rights are absolute. There are realistic restrictions on rights. The legislature and the courts have upheld this as a fact. Law enforcement does not run rampant over civil rights. Law enforcement works within the confines of the legal system and exercises the authority provided to it by law. If you are unhappy with the current authority given to law enforcement try writing to a representative or a senator and start working to change the laws and make them better. If enough people agree with you change will come. Until then petty sniping on a forum solves nothing.
Rights without practical restrictions will always end up with a face off of "my rights" vs "your rights" which will lead ultimately to escalating rhetoric and, in some cases considering the passion involved, potential violence.
Reasonable people understand these restrictions. Reasonable people accept these restrictions. Reasonable people abide by and respect these restrictions.
Peterson will have his day. His former brotherhood will make sure he doesn't get away with anything he might be guilty of.
*************
"You follow me from thread to thread with your anonymouse attacks, too afraid to even make up a name that all can tie to your posts."
Ken, you are one paranoid, angry guy.
Law enforcement does not run rampant over civil rights. Law enforcement works within the confines of the legal system and exercises the authority provided to it by law.
If this is true, why did Will County just pay out a huge sum of money to Kevin Fox? Why is Chicago constantly doing the same? These awards just expose the tip of the iceberg concerning the constant trampling of our rights by law enforcement. Unfortunately, most people don't have big name lawyers like Kathryn Zell to represent them, or the very clear abuse of rights case she had to present.
I have not lost my FOID card rights until my local police decide I am a suspect. That is all Peterson and Stebic are, suspects. That is not covered in the legal reasons to take away a FOID card, yet that is what the legal authorities used to get their cards. Unless they fight the illegal taking of their cards, a precedent will have been set, and that affects my and any other legal gun owner's rights.
One last note, and this applies to Chirs also, isn't the sentiment of we know they are guilty the same that was applied to the Ramsey family? They have been hounded for years because the legal authorities pointed them out as the most likely killers. Twelve years later, the legal authorities had to finally acknowledge that they were completely wrong. Where does that family, or anyone else convicted in the media go to get their rights back?
"You follow me from thread to thread with your anonymouse attacks, too afraid to even make up a name that all can tie to your posts."
Ken, you are one paranoid, angry guy.
It is what it is, Chris. Either you are new here, or you don't read all the posts. This guy and others have followed me from post to post because they do not like the fact that I speak my mind. While that does amuse me, it certainly does not make me angry or paranoid, just cognizant of the facts.
And what proof do you have Kennymouse that anyone follows you from thread to thread?
These came people could make the same claim that it is you who follow them from thread to thread hounding and harassing them because they speak their mind and you don't like their thoughts, ideas, or opinions.
In fact from reading the majority of your posts I think it could be argued successfully that you are just another forum bully who is guilty of what you have accused others of having done and a classic bully tactic by the way.
Recognize that neither you not the law enforcement profession is perfect. You make mistakes, so do they. The legal system sorts things out in the end. If you don't like our system then move to China or some place that you believe will offer you better human rights. Idiots like you would have the authorities ham strung and powerless to do anything by using the examples where the system failed or where mistakes where made. If you know so much, oh wise and learned one, how come all you can do is criticize? Isolate some problems, come up with a solution, and write you legislative officials. Enough of the sour grapes and complaining. If you aren't pare of the solution then you are part of the problem. Whining never solved anything.
Typical anonymouse attack post that uses name calling and belittlement to hide the fact that you have nothing to add to the debate.
Classic example of what I have pointed out to you, Chris. You will not be able to find one example where I have attacked first, yet anonymouse seems to think saying it makes it so, even as he attacks me yet again.
Oh please Kennymouse! So now you want to play the martyr game? Go back to the start of this thread and start reading it forward from the first post. You, yes you in the 5th post on this thread started your usual garbage of flying to assumptions, taking words out of context, and making accusations.
There are many different ways of attacking a person and you used one of the ways by attempting to put negative spin on what was written. And then you have the nerve to lie and say that you never attack first? I'm sure I can comb back thru other threads and find plenty more examples of where you attacked first.
Grow up Kennymouse. You are nothing more than a forum bully. And your weird, sick, delusional mind accuses those who are actually defending their position of attacking you. And yes we recognize that your actions are just one more classic example of a bully behavior.
I never back down from a bully and actually take a lot of pleasure in taking them down. So bring it on. Heck bring your buddy Drew along for all I care. You and he are both a real piece of work.
Next time be careful before you ask for an example because you may get a lot more than you bargained for. Especially since you are obviously not smart enough to check what you wrote previously before asking for such a stupid example.
I hope you keep coming back for more because I'm starting to enjoy this now.
I am not taking sides in your little argument, but I will point out that:
"is under indictment for a felony;"
is a reason for taking away a FOID card.
There is a currently a grand jury reviewing his third wife case and while I realize they have came down with an indictment, maybe there is some fine print that refers to temporary revoking the card during a grand jury session. Just something to consider....or maybe my timeline is way off.
heyheyhey, when Peterson's FOID card was taken away, he was not under indictment for anything. The gun charges came later, when it became obvious that the hearing judge was not going to let the police keep his property indefinitely. Of course, the question of why the gun charge was not filed immediately if the law enforcement officials had a case has not ever been answered. What bothers me is the fact that both Peterson's and Stebic's rights have been taken away just for being suspects. As I have said many times, this does not seem to fit any of the criteria for loosing a FOID card.
Anonymouse, where is your example? In the post you mentioned, I clearly said, "It seems" which would be an indication that I was stating my opinion of what you were trying to say. No attack there, unlike the many bullying attacks in your posts. I am still waiting for an example of where I attacked first. Keep trying, as I am always amused by the failures of self acclaimed smart people like you.
I never back down from a bully and actually take a lot of pleasure in taking them down. So bring it on. Heck bring your buddy Drew along for all I care. You and he are both a real piece of work.
Are you suggesting a meeting with this threat? I will be happy to comply, if you are really interested in going past the typical keyboard rambo act you have going. Anytime anyone threatens to bring me down as you just did, I am more than happy to give them a chance in person. Name your time and place, and then try to carry out your threat. I look forward to it.
Kennymouse,
Being under indictment is not a reason to revoke a FOID card so I don't know why you insist on continuing to harp on that point. Give it up. It isn't a reason so whether the FOID card was revoked before or after the indictment it is still a mute point.
Drew has enough problems without amateurs like you trying to practice law. In care you haven't noticed Drew is represented by an attorney. If the ISP has made as many mistakes as you claim then why hasn't Drew's own attorney filed counter charges against the ISP?
The most likely answer is that there is a lot more to this story than the public is currently aware. For one, and based upon Drew's reported conduct I would not be surprised if the reason was for violation of an order of protection. Drew's third wife had a valid order of protection against him. Her death has now been declared a homicide. If the ISP can prove that at some point in time after the order of protection was issued and prior to her death that Drew violated the order of protection they have cause to revoke his FOID card.
There are a couple of other scenarios that could also be valid reasons to explain why the FOID card was revoked. Just because you are not privy to the rationale utilized by the ISP does not justify your argument than Drew's rights were violated. And so far you have been unable to come up with anything to defend your own argument other than your own opinion.
Anonymouse, I just responded to heyheyhey's point about being under indictment. Is a response now harping, along with the bullying you have claimed it to be? By the way, a mute point would be made by someone who can't speak, a moot point would be your statement on what I am supposedly harping about. By the way, where have I stated that the ISP has made mistakes? You sure do like attributing things to me that I have never stated. Is this because you have nothing to back up your statements, so you have to make up things I supposedly stated?
If the ISP can prove any of their suspicions, they would have reason to revoke Peterson's FOID card. Until then, his privileges have been revoked merely because he is a suspect.
As for your laughable statement that I have not defended my argument of law enforcement authorities overstepping their authority, I suggest you take your own advice, and read what has been written here. I have given several factual examples of this happening. You seem to think your opinions are facts.
Kennymouse,
Oh the Kennymouse we know so well is back to his old tricks... talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time and trying to turn another persons words around for his own gain. If you were any good at this game you might actually get away with it but I will catch you and call you on it every time. So keep on coming back for more. I've got a big shovel and I'll keep burying you in your own words as long as you want.
Listen to the whining about just responding to heyheyhey's point without even considering the context of what was said. You are so anxious to slam anyone who disagrees with you that you even slam stuff that isn't even true as in this example. Obviously, reflective thinking isn't your strong suit.
You have accused the ISP of not upholding the law, of violating the law, of being vigilantes and few other things to boot. If the ISP was not upholding the law that would be a mistake on their part.
So now a FOID card is a privilege? And here I thought your position was that it was a fundamental right that could never be taken away. Maybe you should clarify your real position. Flip floppers tend to loose credibility and I sure wouldn't want to see that happen to you.
Now by what stretch of your imagination did you come to the conclusion that Peterson's FOID card was revoked because he is a suspect? Has the ISP ever made that statement? How about the States Attorney? Or the judge? We are not covering new ground here. There are over a dozen different reasons why a FOID card can be revoked. Being a suspect is not one of the reasons; so give it up. There is a reason it was revoked, it just wasn't being a suspect. Here is a suggestion. Try calling the ISP and asking them. Heck it is public record and you can even file a FOI if you want. Try dealing with facts more often and maybe you will have less anger and hostility. Maybe you will be less paranoid and stop seeing ghost and spooks at every turn in the road.
Your examples of law enforcement overstepping their authority has been limited to anecdotal examples only. In the over 200 year history of our country there are plenty of examples where justice has not been served well. That does not change what has happened in this case nor does it make these anecdotal examples any more relevant to the Peterson case.
So far you remain off in la la land with your own singular opinion that law enforcement in the Peterson case overstepped their authority. And that is despite the fact that there is a ton of information about this case that hasn't even been made public yet. You have obviously made up your mind and condemned the police and prosecutions case against Peterson without knowing all of the facts. And earlier in this thread you were ranting and raving about Peterson's rights to a fair trial.
Well don't forget "We the People" are also entitled to a fair trial. So are the families of wife number 3 and wife number 4. So are the children of wife number 3 and wife number 4. It is in the best interest of society as a whole that the entire trial be fair and that justice is served. While I'm sure Drew would love to have you and your ilk sitting on his jury the fact remains that you do not have an open mind about this case, this trail, or the real facts in this case. Everything you write is poisoned by your dislike of the authorities, your dislike of our legal system, your dislike of our laws, and by your own weird, personal interpretation of "rights". You should get some help. Carrying around all that anger, bitterness, and hate isn't good for you.
It is amazing, anonymouse, how you can type out all the inanities you do, and still think you are doing anything except for making yourself appear even more foolish. All those words, and not a fresh thought or actual fact included... Well, I might as well start the usual debunking process, even though I know I am wasting my time in hoping you can thoughtfully process anything except your own twisted view point.
First, my response to heyheyhey went directly to his concept, without any "slam" involved in the response. I know, you consider any response to be a slam and bullying, but normal people realize that there have to be responses for there to be a debate. Once again, try using what you advise to me, reflective thinking, and maybe things will seem clearer to you.
Second, my accusations of the authorities' willingness to step outside of the laws they have pledged to uphold is far more than an accusation of a mistake, as you have tried twice now to say that I made such a statement. A willful ignorance of law is not a mistake, it is a crime.
Third, if the reason for a suspension in FOID card rights are public record, why did you state earlier that the authorities could not report on mental health issues, and that the authorities reasons would come out at trial? Which is it? Public information, or information held until trial? And you accuse me of flip-flopping...
Speaking of that, I consider my second amendment rights to be just that...rights. Seems the supreme court just re-affirmed those rights. However, when a license, be it a driver's license, or a firearms owner's license are rescinded, it is common to describe this as privileges being revoked. Either you are not smart enough to recognize common language use or you are desperate to try to score any kind of minute victory in your fanciful arguments.
Fifth on the list, you call my examples of law enforcement officials over-stepping their authority anecdotal. So the multi-million dollar awards to Kevin Fox, the apology to the Ramseys, and the multiple payouts every year by cities like Chicago never happened? Dupage county never prosecuted the wrong person on little or no evidence for the murder of a girl in Naperville? As I have stated before, these are only the major cases that have made the news. How many more are brushed under the rug, or allowed to stand with innocent people incarcerated by deliberate malfeasance on the authorities part? While you may find the fact that this happens all the time in major cases acceptable, I find it abhorrent. I think all these examples are relevant to the Peterson case because I want to know that guilty or innocent, no illegal short cuts were taken in the prosecution of the case. I guess we just have different standards of justice. If the authorities are ever charged with any wrongdoing, which rarely happens, I hope they also get a fair trial.
That brings me to my next point. I have clearly stated that any opinion I have on Peterson's innocence or guilt will be shaped by evidence presented at his trial, if he is ever charged. You have clearly stated that you think he is guilty by posting things such as you can't wait to hear the judge say may god have mercy on your soul or that Peterson can feel lucky you will never serve on his jury. While I have never ranted and raved that he get a fair trial as you falsely claim, I hope he and any other criminal defendant does indeed get a fair trial. We the people, and the victims'families do indeed deserve that. Too bad some authorities don't believe that, and end up victimizing families like the Nicaricos twice. Once again, while you may approve of such false prosecutions, I prefer justice to be served fairly and legally.
Lastly, you keep mentioning that I am angry and bitter. Need I remind you that I am not the one who threatened to take me and my "buddy" Peterson out? Seems you are the one with anger issues; I just enjoy a good debate. I keep hoping you will give me one, yet you continue to disappoint me.